Arizona immigration law injunction adds more turmoil to state's controversy

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's decision Wednesday to block key provisions of Arizona's controversial immigration-enforcement law throws more turmoil into an already tumultuous legal and political controversy.

Leading up to 12:01 this morning, when the law took effect:

• Police struggled to figure out how they should enforce portions of Senate Bill 1070 that were not blocked by Bolton's ruling in favor of the U.S. Department of Justice.

• Gov. Jan Brewer and her attorneys debated whether to fight the preliminary injunction before deciding to appeal amid speculation that the case may wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

• Demonstrators for and against the statute discussed whether to proceed with statewide protests, including plans for civil disobedience.

• Illegal immigrants, many of them hunkered down or contemplating an exodus from the state, remained in limbo.

• And everyone awaited further rulings from Bolton, who has yet to deal with motions in six additional lawsuits filed against SB 1070 by the ACLU, other activist groups and police officers.

The one constant: Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said that he is going ahead with "crime suppression" sweeps today and that the federal injunction will have virtually no impact on his deputies.

Across the nation and around the world, Arizona's law drew praise and condemnation when it was signed by Brewer in April amid a furor over border violence and security.

Critics, who launched boycotts and protests against Arizona, say the law implicitly sanctions racial profiling against Hispanics. Proponents say Arizona's immigration laws are designed to reduce illegal immigration and crime, a goal that the federal government failed to accomplish.

Reactions Wednesday were predictably polarized.

From Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, speaking to a gathering of Hispanic activists at her Phoenix restaurant: "We hope this decision will be a wake-up call across America that there is only one immigration law."

From Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce, who sponsored the legislation and predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court eventually will uphold the entire law: "People don't understand, there was no ruling gutting the bill. It was a temporary roadblock in certain portions. We'll win those on appeal. . . . I hoped for this battle."

The ruling

Arizona's immigration law makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally. It states that an officer engaged in a lawful stop, detention or arrest shall, when practicable, ask about a person's legal status when reasonable suspicion exists that the person is in the U.S. illegally.

Ruling that Arizona's law may pre-empt federal jurisdiction over immigration enforcement, Bolton precluded enactment of four key statutory provisions that would:

1. Require a police officer to verify a person's status when there is reasonable suspicion that the subject is an undocumented immigrant.

2. Make it a state crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying proper registration papers.

3. Criminalize the conduct of illegal immigrants who seek or perform work.

4. Allow the warrantless arrest of persons when there is probable cause to believe they committed a public offense that would make them removable from the country.

In issuing the injunction, the judge determined that the Justice Department is "likely to succeed" with its arguments against those measures. But she also upheld many elements of the law, all of which took effect today. One provision allows state residents to sue police if they adopt rules restricting the enforcement of immigration laws. Another makes it a crime to impede vehicle traffic by stopping in a roadway to hire day laborers.

A number of states are contemplating laws similar to SB 1070, but, overall, the injunction appears to signal trouble with the law on constitutional grounds. Bolton concluded that "the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the court does not preliminarily enjoin enforcement of these sections. The balance of equities tips in the United States' favor considering the public interest."

Civil libertarians nationwide praised the court for blocking a measure that they say is designed to target Hispanics and hijack federal authority.

"Other states following in Arizona's misguided footsteps should consider themselves forewarned," said Linton Joaquin, general counsel for the National Immigration Law Center. "Attempts to trample the constitutional rights of communities of color in this country will not be permitted."

Political fallout

Bolton's 36-page finding put lawyers, police, activists and politicians in an immediate dither to divine the legal, political and practical implications.

In Tucson, Brewer said the ruling amounts to "a little bump in the road" that can be appealed to the 9th Circuit. "The fact of the matter is this is just an injunction," Brewer added. "I'm sure as we go through the process, we'll get a fair hearing."

In Washington, D.C., Department of Justice spokeswoman Hannah August issued this statement: "While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive."

Republican senators Jon Kyl and John McCain lambasted the Obama administration for "wasting taxpayer resources filing a lawsuit against Arizona" instead of supporting the state's effort "to act where the federal government has failed."

U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., who previously urged a boycott of Arizona in protest of SB 1070, praised Bolton and said the injunction provides "an important moment for the nation to pause and take a deep breath. . . . As part of this pause, I am encouraging national groups to return their conventions and conferences to the state."

Proponents of SB 1070 disagreed among themselves about the magnitude of the setback.

Rep. John Kavanagh, who co-sponsored SB 1070, described the injunction as "very disappointing" and said it overturned "the meat of the law."

Pearce seemed to count the decision as a victory because while Bolton rejected the requirement for officers to check immigration status of detained persons, she upheld the authority of police to do so. "We put teeth in this bill," he said. "Those teeth are still there. . . . As of Thursday, the handcuffs come off of law enforcement."

Attorney Jordan Rose, whose law firm represents Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever in one of the lawsuits, said Bolton eviscerated the statute.

"This ruling takes away any actual ability to stem the border violence," she added. "It removes the tools law enforcement was pleased to have been given by the law. We're back where we started with a federal immigration (system) that is not working and not being enforced."

Opponents, meanwhile, were nearly unanimous in casting Bolton's conclusion as a triumph. "We think she struck the heart out of 1070," said Stephen Montoya, an attorney representing Phoenix police Officer David Salgado, who sued to block the law.

"We think this is a major step that will protect the residents of Arizona against racial profiling and discrimination," agreed Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the ACLU in Arizona, which also is litigating against the law.

Enforcement

Of all the questions raised, none looms more immediate than this: How are Arizona police going to enforce the remaining elements of SB 1070?

Even before Bolton's ruling, the answers were chaotic, with departments statewide following divergent protocols. In Phoenix, police administrators said they hoped to avoid allegations of racial profiling by instructing officers to check the status of every person stopped or cited. On Wednesday, department officials were seeking legal guidance before deciding how to proceed.

The injunction, released about 10 a.m., gave agencies 14 hours to revise their plans and raised perplexing issues.

"It's certainly a challenge for us to meet the deadline," Phoenix Police Sgt. Tommy Thompson said, " . . . but it's something that we'll do our best to be ready to follow the guidelines laid out by the judge."

By contrast, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office had planned only to check the status of arrested persons. Arpaio said the legal ruling has no significant impact on his guidelines or sweeps: "It's not going to stop what we're doing."

Of police agencies contacted for this story, most announced plans to maintain existing protocols while taking a wait-and-see posture. "It's back to normal as far as I'm concerned," said Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada. "I'm very relieved that we won't be doing immigration work."

Yuma County Sheriff Ralph Ogden said his deputies were ready to carry out the law, only to see it revised at the last minute. "It's frustrating when you spend all those hours training all your people and they say, 'Whoops, we're going to change it.' It's hurry up and wait right now."

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, who was eager to enforce the law, criticized the Obama administration for blocking it.

"The federal government refuses to secure the border and leaves it to states like Arizona to bear the costs of its inaction. Yet, when we try to do the job . . . they stop us. You couldn't make up something this ridiculous."

Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley, who previously urged state leaders to rewrite SB 1070 because of constitutional concerns, vowed to enforce those portions that passed muster in court. "Once that bill became law, I had a duty," Romley said.

To protest, or not?

At the grassroots level, Wednesday's decision reverberated from Phoenix barrios to East Coast think tanks to the streets of Mexico City.

Most activist groups had decided by late Wednesday to go forward with demonstrations, even if the targeted law was partially neutralized.

Opal Tometi, spokeswoman for a group known as Puente, said anti-1070 protests in Phoenix will be held as planned because an injunction is not conclusive. "There is still a lot to be dealt with," she added. "This decision doesn't get at the root of the issue, or get at the concerns of the people affected."

In Nogales, Gustavo Lozano, spokesman for an immigrant-rights coalition known as Border Action Network, said a bi-national demonstration on both sides of the border is expected to attract several hundred participants this afternoon. While the injunction seems favorable, Lozano noted, "SB 1070 can take still effect. . . . We're not changing anything. We're going to keep going until we stop it 100 percent."

Although there was rejoicing at several Hispanic-oriented businesses Wednesday, some owners of these businesses say the damage has already been done. So many of their customers have already left out of fear of the law that some have seen their revenues at least drop in half.

Mexican foreign secretary Patricia Espinosa Cantellamo issued a news release urging the protection of human rights for immigrants, and declaring the court action "a step in the right direction."

Jorge Villareal, a 30-year-old office worker in Mexico City, said the injunction may help, but Hispanics in America have fallen under a shadow. "There's still going to be suspicion, whether you're legal or illegal," he said.